more on clothing (edited to add...)

I had to respond to Charles' speculation about the drab-colored dresses in the store. If the manufacturers/buyers for the store were making an editorial comment, I think it was more on people who were seeking "moderately priced" clothing, than on any kind of size issue.

Because there WERE 4s (and I think, 2s) on the rack, and they were the same unattractive colors. This was true at Kohl's. (I was tempted to, but did not, because my mother was with me and it would have embarrassed her to the thousandth degree, jump up on one of those shelf things they block the aisles with and yelled out to the store in general: "WOULD IT KILL YA TO SELL SOMETHING **PINK**?!?!")

Also true at Penney's. And at Lane Bryant, which is usually friendlier to the larger lady, in terms of color and style as well as sizing. And, IIRC*, Macy's, though Macy's also had those awful (I think they're awful) sleeveless halter-type dresses that are made out of something like swimsuit fabric, where they have the pattern printed partly and then these big gaps in the pattern - it's hard to explain but that style is kind of everywhere right now, it's like it's faux tie-dye, where there's some kind of drab-ish pattern (often paisley or something that seems to nod at Pucci but without the same vibrant use of color), but it's like they folded the fabric when they printed it, so part of the fabric is plain blank white and part is printed.

(*IIRC = If I Remember Correctly)

And, I don't know, but that kind of thing - like asymmetry in design - is the visual equivalent of nails on a chalkboard to me.

Von Maur, which I think of as a more "upscaley" store (they still have a pianist some days in the store near my parents) had nicer colors, but again, so much of the stuff what that swimsuit-material synthetic that I just didn't want to keep looking. (I did wind up buying a skirt and top there...they are some odd synthetic but at least they're not swimsuit fabric. They are a pink, grey, peach, and (IIRC) pale yellowish green print. I bought them in part because I wound up requiring a 10 in the skirt rather than my usual (larger) size*. Yes, vanity, I know. But it was also the most viable outfit I had found in more than a day of searching when I was up there in May. And the pattern was pretty and the colors were flattering on me.)

(*And yes, I'm aware, that vanity sizing is more "vain" in more expensive clothing, which is probably why I required such a small (for me) sized skirt there.)

Left to my own devices and given enough time to sew what I wanted, I'd probably wind up with eight or ten dresses all made off the same pattern but in different cotton prints. I don't know if that's odd or not. I don't know if people even realize that I have several dresses where they have been made from the same pattern. (I have two long, princess-seamed dresses, one in a blue print, one in a white with tiny jewel-toned dragonflies on it. And I have three dresses off the same very simple pattern, which is one of those tie-in-the-back dresses that were so popular some 8 or 10 years ago - one of a very lightweight, almost gauzy fabric with tiny pink flowers, another out of plain blue chambray, and a third out of a bright-pink with tiny butterflies on it. To me, the style sort of resembles the "wash dresses" of the 1930s, the sort of thing housewives wore to go about their daily work, because they were washable and simple...)

Edited to add:

I remember now I took a photo of myself in the pink/butterflies dress, so here it is again (it was from 2006), so you can see the style. The pattern is even older than that, the pattern has to be more than 10 years old at this point.)



There are certain styles I like and would wear if they didn't look too costumey on. I LOVE the "New Look" (Dior, 1947), I think that was maybe one of the most universally flattering looks of the 20th century. (Alas, my waist is no longer as nipped as it once was, so maybe the New Look wouldn't look as good on me any more*). And I like the "tea dress" look of the 1930s - my understanding is that this was a style adopted by ladies in Britain for afternoon tea - they were flowing, loose-fitting dresses (the idea being, presumably, as long as they were only taking tea with other ladies, they would feel comfortable removing their corset before putting the dress on - not wearing a corset meant one was freer to enjoy the delights of the tea table)

(Actually, the thirties - although in many ways a sad and drab decade, and for many women, they were lucky to have two dresses - had some pretty nice designs. The loose fitting "beach pyjamas" are kind of cute, as well).

(*and once again, with the new-school-year resolutions: I am going to try to get back to doing yoga a few nights a week and maybe try to do fifteen minutes or so of calisthenics or stretching on top of the hour I already do first thing in the morning. Maybe if I force myself to do the calisthenics while watching my afternoon wind-down cartoons it will go down a little better. And I want to try to start doing crunches, though when I did some this weekend the hard floor hurt my tailbone (I have padding EVERYWHERE EXCEPT my butt. That seems unfair, somehow.) so I will have to find a pillow or something to put underneath me when I do them.)